Snarek,
thanks for your imput, clearly you follow the risk analysis process and modelling so won't bore others with it.
This is a very serious problem but your reply demonstrates some time you just can't win!!
With regards to the Risk analysis by CASA that determined CTAF was unsafe at airports with 10,000+ movements p.a. where as MBZ were still acceptable. You point out the CTAFs chosen in the risk analysis were large CTAFs, therefore high charging Airports, therefore higher non radio usage to avoid fees.
In discussions with Mike Smith he stated the risk analysis was flawed as the CTAF airports were smaller than the MBZ airports and therefore pilots would think it OK to not make the calls. Mike to my knowledge has no qualifications or analysis to back up this statement.
You can see the problem, Mike says flawed CTAFs needed to be bigger,you say flawed CTAFs should have been smaller.
Me? I say it is the people advocating the change to do the analysis of the new system vs the old and that has not been done. I'll leave you and Mike to workout the size of the CTAF that should be used for the statistical analysis. AN analysis most here know will never happen.
On CA/GRS, yes stolen from Canada and not my idea in the first place we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.
On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis it should be by an independent party, ICAO says this and I wish NAS IG and the Smiths would apply it to any analysis of the NAS.
I agree there seems to many reports on airspace but can you advise of one that has a risk analysis that shows CTAF is OK at airports with 20,000 a/c movements p.a., 250,000 PAX p.a. and serviced by 737 RPT aircraft, I seem to have misplaced my copy of that report.
Gaunty,
the NAS IG is what it says an implimentation group, it is not their job to do the analysis.
It would be a very poor career move for the seconded personnel in NAS IG to say no don't like this not proven won"t implement this.
They are in an invidious position, just ask Mick what the pressures are like if you say "hey wait on this not proven and should not be implemented."
Where are all the normal steps involved in aviation rule changes? Why and how is this being steamrolled through?
Don't ask a mid level seconded member of NAS IG to stand up and say HOLT, NOT ON, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS. Even the Dep P.M. seems reluctant ,dispite some serious concerns being presented to him, to make that call.